The Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments

[dawna]

Neil:

With regards to your statement "that folks prior to the Civil War thought there was a natural right to revolution," and you question whether there was a legal one, I would only ask you this, "What then are sufficient grounds for a natural revolution? Was secession a natural right that was suppressed because of missing legal rhetoric?

I think that you have dismissed the credentials of William Rawle far too quickly. This gentleman was George Washington’s first candidate to be the first Attorney General of the United States, Rawle’s Philadelphia law firm, Rawle and Henderson, founded in 1783, was recognized by the Pennsylvania Legislature as "the oldest law office in continuous practice in America" in 1983. William Rawle’s grandfather, Francis Rawle, wrote the first book published by Benjamin Franklin. Also, William Rawle was the United States Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania (appointed by George Washington), and a founder of the Philadelphia Bar Association. The fact that Mr. Rawle's book was used by the Federal government to teach it's officers at West Point that States had a right to secede is not only noteworthy, but I feel of considerable significance.

Excerpts from Mr. Rawle's book:

"The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

If from any other motives, or under any other pretexts, the internal peace and order of the state are disturbed, and its own powers are insufficient to suppress the commotion, it becomes the duty of its proper government to apply to the Union for protection...At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be, on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority.

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case – as in the case of an unconditional secession, – the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power."

As for our infamous Thomas DiLorenzo, I only invite you to consider that he has authored and sold over ten books, and the interview that I included in my last posting was meant to show admission on DiLorenzo's part of the errors that had been made in his book and the sources for these errors. The book was reprinted, and the point was made, which I think a good one, that you cannot discount DiLorenzo's entire thesis because of this...can you?

I'm sorry that you feel I've ignored the statement, "in order to form a more perfect Union" because I thought I had made myself clear on this in my last posting. It defies explanation. How exactly do you define the concept of "a more perfect Union", and how do you achieve this...by force?

Maybe I should switch to expresso Neil because although I have the utmost respect for your opinions on the Ninth and Ten Amendments, I'm completely lost by your interpretation. Again, my understanding is that the Tenth Amendment reinforces the fact that the federal government was created by the piece of paper called the Constitution, and that it has no other powers besides those given to it by the Constitution. Logically, in the federal system, somebody else has those powers, either the states or the people.

I can't see anything whimsical regarding the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - they remain crystal clear to me but admittedly, I'm not sure whether I need a double jolt of expresso, or perhaps it's time to switch altogether to decaf!

Neil, please forgive me if it's rude to quote (I'm never sure about this) but I am a little curious about this statement from your last posting: "I also fail to understand why you think Lincoln is being abstract when he states a government does not provide for its own self destruction. I am sure in the life time of a nation or a person do we ever seriously consider suicide as a practical means of solving our problems." Lincoln's reference to an "organic government" does seem abstract to me...what exactly idoes "organic government mean? And I'm certain that you don't mean to suggest that the South knowingly, and in good conscience, chartered their own demise...that you're comparing sucicide to secession?

I may have missed some points from your last posting, and if so, I apologize in advance and I'll catch up on my next one. :-)

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dawna,

I never learned how to take my caffine hot, coffee, tea, expresso, or otherwise, unless it was ice-cold Pepsi.

Dawna, it is never rude to me to quote me when you are trying to understand or rebutt a point of mine. Please don't worry about it and do so when you feel the need.

In my own view the Declaration of Independence list the reasons for a revolution, when it is a last resort when all other legal attempts at change have been exhausted. Here is where I term revolution a 'natural' right. Again, in my own view, secession is a 'contrived' or 'man made' attempt to make revolution somehow a legal means at attaining the same goal without the risks. The idea of a 'legal' secession stems from John Calhoun from around 1828 and even then most did not buy the idea, even fellow politicians from the South. Even as late as the 1850's, secession was viewed by the majority of citizen in the South as nothing more than thinly disguised illegal revolution and treason. Only when slavery is threatened do you see the idea gain ground as legal smoke and mirrors for getting out of the Union. So, no, secession is not a 'natural' right that was suppressed because it wasn't ever 'there' in the first place.

You are right, I have dismissed William Rawle far too quickly, but obviously, not quickly enough. The reason this man is thrown up so quickly as 'proof' that the idea of secession was somehow legal, real, etc., is that he was 'taught' at the premier military academy in the nation, West Point. Again, he was there for perhaps a year, the section of his work on the Constitution pertaining to his theory of secession may have not even been taught, his work was considered sub-standard by the staff for as soon as Joseph Story's work on the Constitution came out, it was snapped up and replaced Rawles. A study was done at the end of the Civil War to somehow implicate or prove that the majority of West Point grads in the Southern army studied Rawles and it came to naught as only ONE officer was shown that could have been influenced by him, Albert Johnson. So no, it matters very little to me what he was to Washington or the PA Legislature or how old his law firm was. His impact on somehow making secession more 'legal' or acceptable is very near zero with me. And again, you have to be able to prove to me that his book was used by 'The Federal Government' to teach secession, what officers were taught to make it in anyway a 'considerable significance.'

I tell you what is impressive from Rawle's book is the section on the consequences of secession. He paints a pretty grim picture for the state so leaving the Union and discourages the whole thing in no uncertain terms.

As for DiLorenzo, I know he has authored at least ten other books, to include one that seemly encourages folks to smoke to oppose the federal government or some such. Have you read any of his other books to compare how well he does research or comes out against other opinions of such? And frankly DiLorenzo won't admit his big mistakes on any of the errors in his book that really matters, such as the idea that 200,000 Union men deserted over Lincoln's announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation or that the war was simply over tariff issues. I have seen the reprinted 'work' and it is just as flawed over historical fact and research as his 'original' and yes, I can discount his entire thesis, thank you.

As for your concerns over achieving a perfect Union by force, you have it turned around, Dawna. How do you achieve a more perfect Union by rebelling against it without sufficient cause? Answer; you can't.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve power to the people, not the States. Those amendments contain no hidden legal rights or powers so therefore I contend the South knew it did not have any justification for a revolution so it tried instead to create a power out of thin air by legal mumbo-jumbo from John Calhoun, not the founders, not the Constitutional convention, but instead of having the honesty to declare themselves in rebellion as the founders had done, they knew that they could not truly justify the words in the Declaration of Independence nor were there enough of a justification to do so, as the South had no rights that were wronged, no freedoms denied and no last resort of arms required that could not be solved at the bar or the ballot box.

And yes, Dawna, I am suggesting the South, blinded by its supposed military poweress and superiority, knowingly and in hell-bent conscience, charted their own political and social suicide and that was what secession truly was.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil,

If secession is treason are you suggesting that West Point had a book taught, even if for just one day, or read from the library for just one minute that granted the right of treason? Doesn't that strike one as odd? It does me.

As to cause for revolution. You do not need one. Never have.

YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Hello! Long time no see or hear from, old friend. I hope all is well with you and you are back for a time amongst your friends here on the board.

No, I am not saying West Point taught treason for a day or longer for that matter. I am saying the textbook available for study on the Constitution at the time was Rawles book and the Point made use of what it had. As an instructior, both in and out of the military, I have had to use outdated and old material to teach certain points and have either skipped over or dropped those portions of the text/material that simply no longer applied or made sense. Hence the reason, in my opinion, Rawles book was dropped after only one year and replaced with Story's book on the Constitution which stated secession was not an option in the Constitution.

As to a cause for revolution, if it is taxes, tea or equal representation, I feel most folks have a cause they rally round or else they sit at home watching TV and eatting pizza. Something must effect them, stir them up, in other words a cause, maybe not one that you and I would not consider important or even a reason for such an act, but a cause they can point to and use for justification.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil,

I think John Brown, John Sherman, Senator Lane, Hinton Helper and the rest had given the South plenty to be disturbed about. The Morrel Tariff was already on the table and the north (not necessarily the democrats) had control enough to pass it. I think there was plenty to be stirred up about.

Rufus Choate of Maine, who had succeeded to Daniel Webster's seat in the US Senate, in a letter to the Maine State Central Committee, about the way the new anti-slavery party was conducting it's campaign....

"By what vote can I do most to prevent the madness of the times from working it's maddest act-the very ecstasy of its madness-the permanent formation and the actual triumph of a party which knows one half of America, only to hate and dread it?"
"If the Republican Party gives the government to the north, I turn my eyes from the consequences. To the fifteen States of the south that government will appear an alien government. It will appear worse. It will appear a hostile government."

He was right.



I thank you for the words of welcome. I’m doing the best I can but don’t expect much. I’m ok unless I have to actually engage my brain.

Tommy

I love the new forum's ability to do html.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Where in heck did you get such a great avatar? I love the way the figure bangs his head against his keyboard!

And you're right Tommy, the South was concerned about John Brown, Sherman, Lane and the Hinton Helper, they had a lot more on their minds than a tariff issue that wasn't one.

Even the statement you provide by Senator Choate of Maine shows where the real agitation was, over the idea that a government that looked to the idea of restricting slavery was the South's real concern.

Take it easy, ease back into the knife fight and keep your back to the wall. Real good to have you back.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[dawna]

Neil:

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote the following in 1899 in his biography of Daniel Webster:

When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. (Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899, p. 176)

The Articles of Confederation expressly stated that the Union they were creating was “perpetual” and that that Union could only be altered by the approval of all the States, but if the natural right of self preservation allowed a State to peacefully leave the "perpetual" Union of the Articles of Confederation without the consent of the other States, then wouldn't logic dictate that this natural right would also permit a State to peacefully leave the 'federal' Union, which was not described as perpetual.? Couldn't the term "more perfect union" refer to the "effectiveness" of the Union, rather than the idea of it's duration, or permanency? And Neil, couldn't something be "perfect" but not necessarily perpetual?

From a letter by James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830:
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."

I find this letter interesting because not only did "at pleasure" imply that there were conditions under which a State could separate, but Madison made it clear what those conditions might be i.e. consent of the other States, usurpations, or abuses of power.

George Tucker, another legal heavyweight, said a State had the right to secede. On this issue, Mr. Tucker wrote that the States’ participation in the Union was voluntary and that each state had the right to resume to “the most unlimited extent” the functions that it had delegated to the federal government."

I can't help but think that if Lincoln had been alive during the American Revolution and had used the same kind of logic that he used against Southern secession, he would have sided with the British.

It's my understanding that most Southerners believed that secession would be peaceful. They proceeded in a peaceful, democratic manner, with the support of the majority of Southern citizens. The Southern states used the same process to secede that the original thirteen states used to ratify the U.S. Constitution, i.e., by voting in special conventions comprised of delegates who were elected by the people, with the exception of Tennesee.

It appears that a common Northern belief is that the Declaration of Independence refers to the natural right to revolt against tyranny and that there is no natural right of peaceful separation...only a natural right of violent revolution to escape oppression. But a revolution does not necessarily have to be violent, and do only the "strongest" get to enjoy self goverment?

Two months before the Confederacy was established, Davis commented on a revolution without violence in a speech: "Now, sir, we are confusing language very much. Men speak of revolution; and when they say revolution they mean blood. Our fathers meant nothing of the sort. When they spoke of revolution they meant an unalienable right. When they declared as an unalienable right the power of the people to abrogate and modify their form of government whenever it did not answer the ends for which it was established, they did not mean that they were to sustain that by brute force. They meant that it was a right; and force could only be invoked when that right was wrongfully denied. Great Britain denied the right in the case of the colonies, and therefore our revolution for independence was bloody. If Great Britain had admitted the great American doctrine, there would have been no blood shed. . . .

Regarding Article VI, Section 2, my interpretation of this clause means that ony those federal laws which are pursuant to the Constitution are the 'supreme law,' and if these laws are not pursuant to the Constitution, they are not the supreme law of the land. Wouldn't this imply that the States have a right/duty to interpret the U.S. Constitution equally with the federal government?

Since we seem to have different interpretations of Amendments and Articles, I will leave you with a question and a comment. By forcing the South to stay in the Union, is this not just another form of slavery? And if the South had been allowed to secede, I see the birth of a Nation, not the destruction of the Union.


Dawna

[unionblue]

"The great conservative institution of slavery, so excellent in itself, and so necessary to civil liberty and the dignity of the white race, is one of the grand objects of our struggle. It should never be lost sight of, nor under any pressure should we ever take any step incompatible with the relation of master and slave. No entering wedge to emancipation should ever be allowed. It should not be held forth to the slave as a boon for his services. Our theory is, that he is better off as a slave; and even if he were not, we could not safely have an emancipted class of them amongst us. Much less can we put arms in his hands. Than would ruin him forever. Slavery afterwards would become impossible."

From an editorial from the Washington, Arkansas, Telegraph of January 13, 1865.

Dear Dawna, having looked your last post over and having done a bit of research and web surfing, I now will offer you my reply.

I think its nice that Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote a biography of Daniel Webster. I ask you to go to the following web site and listen to ol' Daniel yourself and see what he had to say about secession during the great debate in the United States Senate on March 7, 1850. Scroll down the page until you get to his speech.

http://www.sagehistory.net/antebellu...CompDebate.htm

Part of the speech you will read has the following words spoken by the man:

"There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility."

"Is the great Constitution under which we live here-covering this whole country-is it to be thawed and melted away by secession as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun-disappear almost unobserved and die off? NO, SIR! NO, SIR! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the states; but, sir, I see it as plainly as I see the sun in the heaven-I see that disruption must produce such a war as I will not describe,..."

Again, I am of the opinion Senator Webster is being taken out of context. I suggest you read his entire speech and if it were possible, I would inform Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to do the same. I find it extemely difficult to believe that a man who uttered the words; "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" ever seriously considered secession a good idea or that any state had a right to peaceably withdraw from the Union.

I ask you Dawna, how could 'a more perfect Union' be made into a more perfect one if a state could withdraw over any implied slight or disagreement? You are splitting hairs over the words 'perfect' and 'perpetual' and ignoring the intent of both.

I have read the entire February 15, 1830 letter by James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, and it can be found here if you wish to see it.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch7s28.html

The part of it that leaped out at me was the following:

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."

When you read the entire letter it is impossible to misconstrue Madison's meaning of the words 'at pleasure' for anything than what they mean. A state just can't up and decide one day it's leaving the union, not unless it get permission form every other state.
I have read George Tucker's views and again, along with Mr. Rawle, he is in the minority in his opinion over a state leaving the Union. His opinion was not shared by a majority, not even in the South, not until Senator Calhoun began his dubious quest for legalized secession in the 1820's.

In no way did the people of the South consider the idea that secession would be peaceful. Their very actions belie this tale. Guns and cannons being secretly shipped South, 100,000 men being called up before ANY action by Lincoln or the firing on Ft. Sumter, they flatly prepared for war. And are you sure about those voting conventions? Did you check out South Carolina's special convention? Just how democratic do you find that one to be?

And what the heck was Davis talking about when he spoke of revolution? I would very much like to see his WHOLE speech, as again, I get nervous when I only get to read a part of it, perhaps again taken out of context. But if anyone at any time says that revolution can be achieved without bloodshed, they have not read history.

As for your interpretation of Article VI, Section 2, you are not in agreement with the Supreme Court, before the Civil War nor after it. The Constitution is the 'Supreme Law' of the land and no, the States do not have the right to interpret the US Constitution, the Supreme Court got that job.

I submit that we do have different interpretations of the Amendments and Articles, but no, the South was not forced into a form of slavery by not allowing to secede. They were instead compelled to obey the law and a legal election and forbidden to forment an illegal rebellion with the ultimate goal of keeping four million souls in perpetual slavery and the destruction of a democratic form of government.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[dawna]

Neil:

I know that you and others have given Bill and I the go ahead to dabble in your American affairs, but I still feel a little pensive, especially on this particular thread when I am attempting to understand and interpret the U.S. Constitution. But I do find it fascinating and I very much appreciate your tolerance and patience in this regard.

Having said the above, I understand why you think that I am "splitting hairs" but I do believe that language in this time frame is essential to our discussion and it shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily. Perspective and interpretation are powerful motivators, and ultimately what the Civil War was all about, is it not? While your analysis of a more perfect Union is one where all the States remain in the Union, I am suggesting that it could also mean a more perfect Union for ALL it's citizens, including those who became disenchanted with their less than perfect country and sought perfection elsewhere.

The term perpetual Union is no different. Is it really splitting hairs to think that perpetual could refer to the quality of the Union, rather than it's avalanche approach to marriage without divorce?

President Lincoln's brilliant language served his agenda very well, but his silence reagrding the 9th and 10th Amendments leaves the field wide open to loose interpretations and a slew of unanswered questions. If the South did indeed have the right to secede, than Federal authority ceased to exist in those States when they withdrew from the Union. And it is not alarming to me Neil that President Davis called up 100,000 troops and shipped guns and cannons in secret or otherwise...he was, afterall, preparing to defend his country if necessary, just like any other nation.

I had read James Madison's letter to Nicolas Trist in it's entirety, but I read it again and I'm including an additional paragraph from that letter, which is compatible with the one from my previous posting: Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations. It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved. And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it. Again, what Madison is saying is pretty clear to me.

In his report on the Virginia Resolution, Madison said:

The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. (The Madison Report in the Virginia Report of 1799-1800).

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."
The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

I consider President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address poetic and moving, but not logical. Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination - government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." I was under the impression that it was the North who fought against "self determination," and the South who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.

With all due respect Neil, I think that Ghandi and William of Orange would disagree with your statement of, "But if anyone at any time says that revolution can be achieved without bloodshed, they have not read history."

Dawna

There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement.
~Emerson~

[unionblue]

Dear Dawna,

And I deeply appreciate you in your ability to listen and to try and understand my views. It is indeed a worth while thread and I hope we continue to learn from one another. Thank you for your patience with an old man, very set in his ways.

I am sorry for my comment on splitting hairs, but I do tend to think that the meanings to the words and phrases you indicate above are meanings in search of a cause.

Sometimes it seems that in order to justify our own versions of history from here in the 21st century, we put too much english on the ball. And no, Dawna, to beat a very dead horse, I do not think perspective and interpretation on the cause of the war is all that difficult with all the historical documentation we have available today.

Instead of listening to the authors of today who are plainly dissatisfied with today's problems and trying to twist the past into some sort of werid justification for their modern-day agenda's, we should trust the words of the men and women of the past, their perspectives and interpretations of why they felt justified to fight a bloody civil war, no matter which side they choose for themselves. I would love to have heard a debate in 1859 - 1860 on the people's perspective on perpetual and if it refered to the quality of the Union. I am willing to bet my future Postal retirement it would come down to a much simpler reason, one that is not at all comfortable with many defenders of the South in this century.

I have to admit I find it somewhat confusing over how easy a pass that Davis and the South get at sneaking arms into their section of the country and raising 100,000 troops when the concept they were doing it to 'defend their country. And the fact it was not alarming to you is another puzzle to me. In spite of the fact these acts of treason, and there is no other word for it as no new country had been formed before many of these acts took place, before any action by Lincoln, the North, by anyone who could have been a threat to the South.

Davis and the South had yet to accomplish what the United States had already done, won it's independence and the right to call itself a nation. And again, I have to disagree with you on the idea that Ghandi and William of Orange achieved their goals without revolution and bloodshed. How many Indians died at British hands during the long struggle for India's independence? It was not accomplished without sacrifice in human live or suffering. It takes sacrifice to build on the idea of attaining nationhood, it does not spawn itself without pain and blood, no birth ever has, no matter how much antiseptic is applied.

When Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and spoke of to the cause of self-determination, he was speaking of the majority who had made their will known in a fair and legal election, that their will would not be defeated by those who attempted rebellion not for a noble cause or an experiment in democracy, but in an insane and reckless attempt to subvert the national will of the people as expressed in that election. The South already had the right to govern itself, and had for over seventy years, making its will part of the nation though Southern Presidents, Senates, judges, Supreme Courts and political appointees. The North, in spite of some real greivences, stayed with the Union and finally made its desires known, legally, within the law, without revolution and bloodshed.

Once again, James Madison, in my opinion and that only, is very clear in what he is saying in the portion you quote. No individuals or group of individuals can decide whenever the mode strikes them, to break off and form their own club (i.e. nation) without violating the rules/compact that binds them. They can leave the club/nation if they want and move to another one, on an individual basis and he deems that as a reasonable privilege. Nowhere does he indicate secession is OK or right or legal.

Time and time again, Madison's Virginia Resolutions are twisted out of its original context and the original problem it was made to address, the Alien and Sedition Act, not seperation from the Union, not a State deciding it could leave the Union throw actions on its own hook.

Boston Daily Travler, 1860: "No state can legally leave the Union. What is called 'the right of secession' has no existence. It means the right of revolution, which belongs to every people...If the revolution succeeds, history justifies them; if they fail, it condems them, even while not condemning their motives of action...If South Carolina should rebel,--and secession is rebellion,--and if other states should join her, it would be the duty of the general government to compel them to observe the law..."

Tuscaloosa, Ala., Independent Monitor, July 17, 1851: "No government could be supposed to contain a provision for, or to sanction as a right, its own destruction."

Macon Georgia Journal and Messenger, Oct. 2, 1850: " [Secession] asserts the principle that the minority have the right to force the majority. There can be no government where such a principle is recognized."

Independent Monitor, May 1, 1851: "If the doctrine of 'peaceable secession' is recognized, and the false pride or unreasonable whims of a State are deemed sufficient reasons for its exercise, no year would pass without some one of the States throwing the whole machinery of government into a score of weak but hostile communities."

Lynchburg Virginian, Aug. 28, 1851: "Southerners have a natural right to revolution but not a constitutional right of secession."

Vicksburg Weekly Whig, Oct. 15, 1851: "[On] the perpetuity of [this government]...hangs the freedom of mankind. Secession in my humble judgment, [is] repugnant to the Constitution, at war with the theory of our Government, and if established, will lead to the overthrow of our Republican system."

I very much wanted you to view the above newspaper articles, especially those from the South in the 1850's. Secession, even then, was considered a no-go and in no way a peaceable goal. The South did not walk into the idea that this idea of secession was going to be peaceful or without some turmoil.

What the South wanted, and the way the wanted it, was not in any way comparable to Ghandi or even William of Orange. If Ghandi had tried to protest against slavery using his methods of the 1920's - 1940's, he would have been killed, jailed or driven out, no questions asked and his Constitutional rights to free speech and government protection of his rights be ****ed.

"I acknowledge, to the fullest extent, the right of revolution, if you may call it a right, and the destruction of the Government under which we live, if we are discontented with it, and on its ruins to erect another more in accordance with our wishes. I believe nobody at this day denies the right; but they that undertake it undertake it with this hazard: if they are successful, then all is right, and they are heroes; if they are defeated, they are rebels..."

"If we are overthrown we but share the fate of a thousand other governments that have been subverted. If you are the weakest, then you must go to the wall; and that is all there is about it."

Benjamin Franklin Wade of Ohio, Senate, December 8, 1860.

Sincerely,
Unionblue